Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently condemned the Bahraich District Bar Association's resolution, which allegedly prohibited its member-advocates from representing accused individuals if the matter involved any other advocate.

A bench led by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi criticized this resolution, deeming it contrary to the ethical standards expected from advocates and a violation of Bar Council of India Rules.

Court sought an explanation from the President and General Secretary of the District Bar Association regarding passing of such a resolution.

The Case:

The court was dealing with an application filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing non-bailable warrants and the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants initiated by an advocate under various sections of the IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. The complainant-advocate had alleged that the accused-applicants had assaulted him and his father over a property dispute.

Controversy Surrounding Advocate Representation:

During the proceedings, it came to light that the complainant-advocate had written to the District Bar Association, urging action against another advocate for representing the accused-applicants. The letter, addressed to the President and General Secretary of District Bar Association, requested that no advocate should represent the accused in the case filed by the complainant-advocate.

The letter also mentioned that District Bar Association, Bahraich had passed a mandate in its general body meeting that in any matter, in which an advocate is involved, no other advocate will appear on behalf of the accused person and will not file his vakalatnama on his behalf.

The high court expressed concern over this alleged resolution, considering it disruptive and in need of further examination.

Court's Observations:

Court emphasized the importance of advocates conducting themselves nobly and criticized both the complainant and the District Bar Association for impeding the accused from accessing legal recourse.

"The profession of Advocacy has long been considered as a noble profession and it is expected that Advocates shall conduct themselves in a noble manner," said the single judge bench.

To conduct a deeper scrutiny of the matter, court issued notices to the state government, the complainant, and the District Bar Association's officials to file their responses.

Additionally, it stayed the execution of the non-bailable warrant and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicants until the next hearing scheduled for the week commencing May 6, 2024.

Case Title: Virendra Kumar And Others v. State of UP and Another